Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[Photonic]

Patriot act was signed in by a republican.

It passed 98-1 in the Senate, fool.

Oh, why don't you tell us who wrote the damn thing sir?

 

[Oddball]

Why does it matter who wrote it?

The Senate voted for it 98-1...Were there any opposition, there would've been more than the 1 vote against (Feingold).

 

[Two Thumbs]

All gun laws come from liberals
You know longer have the right to bear arms, b/c of liberals.
You can't smoke outside in NYC.
Free speech was limited by liberals. They call it "hate speech", but really it's anything they don't like.
Taxes are taken from the workers and given to those that don't work, by liberals.

I can keep going if you like.

 

[Photonic]

Why does it matter who wrote it?

The Senate voted for it 98-1...Were there any opposition, there would've been more than the 1 vote against (Feingold).

Even in the face of absolute facts, you still don't get it.

No one did anything to stop that horrible shit Act.

Not the republicans, not the democrats.

Not the left or right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

Because government revenue just materializes out of thin air!

Of course it doesn't.
That's why they should stop overpromising.

 

[Toro]

I'm almost fifty seven, and I've paid into it since I was seventeen.

Imagine, if you'd been able to put those 40 years of contributions into the stock market, how much you'd have now.

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.

 

[editec]

Nobody here, I suspect, really wants TOTAL FREEDOM.

We all pretty much really want just enough government.

Of course we'll debate until we're blue in the face what JUST ENOUGH means, but we all would eschew complete freedom for individuals.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

Wrong. Liberty does not mean having stuff. It has nothing to do with material well-being. Equating liberty with income is a Marxist scam. Government action that does anything other than protect you from predators is a violation of your rights. It's the opposite of liberty.

What you have done here is employ the 1984 technique of labeling things to be the opposite of what they really are.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

That is a non-problem in this country.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Wrong. Having money and using it to make more money, so long as no fraud is involved, is not an infringement on your liberty. Only force is an infringement.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

Wrong. You simply label the anti-liberty position as the pro-liberty position. It's pure demagoguery.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

No, that is theft. Government becomes the violator of your rights instead of the protector. Only leftwing turds swallow this brand of "logic."

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Again, your post is the exact opposite of the truth.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Government is the monopoly on the use of force. 95% of what the government does is a violation of your rights, so government is indeed the greatest threat to your liberty.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

The only thing liberals do consistently is lie their asses off and make utterly ridiculous claims that even school children laugh at.

 

[Si modo]

I'm a classical liberal but considered a conservative.

So, who knows what the OP is talking about or whom he is talking about.

?????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

You mean like OWS? Seizing public property, assaulting cops, destroying private property. Like that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Anytime you depend on the government for your welfare check, Health Care, Social Security Retirement, whether or not you have employment, etc. . . . . you don't have any liberty.

Not true. When you depend on some outside source, whether it's the government or an employer, for your livelihood, whether that represents a loss of liberty depends on whether that source could arbitrarily take it away. If they can, then you can be blackmailed by the source of your livelihood into obedience. In fact, though, the government CAN'T arbitrarily take away those funds. It must abide by the rule of law, which says among other things when and under what circumstances it MUST pay you these benefits. An employer, on the other hand, CAN arbitrarily take away your paycheck and leave you with no recourse.

Again, we see the basic libertarian fallacy: that government = non-liberty.

The rest of you have said nothing, and need not be answered.

The difference here, is I prefer to take some "personal responsibility" for my life (an irrelevant topic for you that's "not to be answered") than HAVE to be dependent on the Federal Government for anything. Unfortunately you seem to be quite content with allowing someone else to provide that life for you, perhaps because of the tasks that's involved with having to achieve it? It's unfortunate that the success of those who work towards their goals and choose to go out and take the risk of doing something in an attempt to achieve success, have to supply the needs of those who would much rather prefer to "receive" on someone elses dime. Hard Work, discipline, learning from your own mistakes, education and reward through self achievement, and having the ABILITY and SELF DETERMINATION to advance oneself beyond the boundaries of which they once grew up in, are the signs of true liberty and more importantly — character. You can pacify and chain yourself to government if that's where your contentment and limitations lie, but I prefer personal achievement with the ability that I attained success standing on my OWN two feet.


“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

[Wiseacre]

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.

My only problem is what happens if somebody invests their own SS funds and loses all or most of it. Who has to pay to help him out?

 

[Full-Auto]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

Your title is laughable on its face.

How many more border agents do liberals plan on murdering low life.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

BTW, its pretty hard to miss the fact that a tax - any tax - is an infringement on liberty. The OP seems to have missed this small fact.

Any attempt to take assets from one group of people and give those assets to another is an exercise of government power of one group of people over the other, and violates the liberty of those who have their wealth taken from them by government power.

So I should be able to benefit from the people of my country for free.

Sounds a bit like taking advantage.

That doesn't seem very patriotic.

Yet, there is the belief and the notion a group or "class" who have paved the way in laboring, educating, and discovering the path to achieve their own success must supply for those who don't share in the same desire to do so, only that those "needs" be supplied by someone else. I can go into the city and always see a group of kids that prefers the streets OVER the discipline of obtaining a free public education, yet the government should supply for them. Sounds like we have a system that is a bit taking advantage of.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ah, it's all about the alleged freedom to hire someone to terminate the life of your unborn baby. Liberals define the stabbing of a full term baby in the back of the head and sucking out it's brain as "reproductive rights" and anybody who is against that type of manslaughter is seen in their minds as being against true liberty.

Medically a baby is not a baby until birth.

Tell that to the people on Death Row. You're against one thing you perceive as murder and for something that everyone else perceives as murder.

It comes down to accepting responsibility and consequences for the choices you make in life. You want to seriously defend the barbaric procedure of a late term abortion to the chosen actions of someone like a serial killer or body mutilator? That's a sick twisted view on the appreciation of an innocent life.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I would vote for the first conservative who doesn't have a "conservative, read - religious" social agenda.

I happen to enjoy conservative fiscal policy.

The issue here about government and the issue of religion, is that the subject has gotten rather twisted to suit one group's perception or "control" of religion. When in actuality, the founders desired citizens to have the freedom to worship whatever denomination they chose without government interfering or dictating HOW or in what manner they could worship. Government has no place pushing faith issues on anyone, nor do they have a right to dictating to any citizen on what is acceptable or not regarding religion. The First Amendment focused and addressed BOTH of these issues, however each side (left and right) has twisted it's original intent to one that suits an "agenda" more than person's individual rights. This is one example of where government has exchanged an individual's choice in freedom, to authoritative pulpit government POWER that forces others to have to submit to.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out. The answer is generally "no."

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.

Government has never shown itself to be fiscally responsible or efficient, that much is a given. I would gladly like to have had the option years ago, to opt out of social security and invest the funds in my own retirement account.

 

[Bfgrn]

Only liberals aren't pro-liberty.

Conservatives want economic freedom but have no problem with the government interfering in people's social lives.

Liberals want social freedom but have no problem with the government interfering in people's economic lives.

Only libertarians are consistently pro-liberty, even if a disproportionate amount of them are batshit insane.

VERY few libertarians are behind government regulations, consumer protection or environmental protection.

 

[Bfgrn]

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.

Government has never shown itself to be fiscally responsible or efficient, that much is a given. I would gladly like to have had the option years ago, to opt out of social security and invest the funds in my own retirement account.

FALSE...

Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

 

[Katzndogz]

All gun laws come from liberals
You know longer have the right to bear arms, b/c of liberals.
You can't smoke outside in NYC.
Free speech was limited by liberals. They call it "hate speech", but really it's anything they don't like.
Taxes are taken from the workers and given to those that don't work, by liberals.

I can keep going if you like.

You can smoke dope anywhere in NYC. Even in the park. Pot smoke is a contributing factor to Zucotti lung.